case study on interaction between the eia and the habitas directive comments to the solution...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf35503460f949c0fd3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
1
Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive
Comments to the solution
![Page 2: Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf35503460f949c0fd3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
2
1. Question a) EIA Annex I 2. (a) and 24. to the Directive (if 300 or
more MW)
or Annex II 3. (a)
b) FFH
See: EU Commission’s guidance“MANAGING NATURA 2000 SITES The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’
Directive 92/43/EEC”
![Page 3: Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf35503460f949c0fd3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
3
Page 31
“As regards geographical scope, the provisions of Article 6(3) are not restricted to plans and projects which exclusively occur in or cover a protected site; they also target developments situated outside the site but likely to have a significant effect on it.”
2. Question Principally national law applies, but– Interpretation consistent with the Directive– In case of conflict: Eventually direct effect of the Directive
![Page 4: Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf35503460f949c0fd3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
4
3. Questiona) “Adversely effect” , yesb) Absence of alternative solutions, yes (extension!)c) “Imperative reasons of overriding public interest” ?
EU Commission’s guidance, page 43:
„Thus, projects that lie entirely in the interest of companies or individuals would not be considered to be covered.”Security of energy supply = public interest
4. Question A condition to the permit is better than refusal.
![Page 5: Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf35503460f949c0fd3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
5
5. QuestionProcedural autonomy of the Member States (MS)
6. Question Procedural autonomy of the MS. Such a consequence seems
not to be requested by EU law.7. Question - Transboundary effect: See Article 7 EIA Directive- Insufficient EIA:
Case C-72/12, Altrip, 7 November 2013 Challenge of a irregularly carried out EIA cannot be
excluded
![Page 6: Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf35503460f949c0fd3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
6
Condition of causality permissible But: Burden of proof (of a casual link) must not fall on
the applicant
8. Question The NGO has no damage
9. Question - Judicial restraint? - Procedural autonomy of the MS? - Problematic!
10. Question The answer depends on the solution according to the national
law